The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

33 Snowfish

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable novel, no reason to suggest notability. JayJay^{Talk to me} 03:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - There are sources, but no significant coverage and most sources only provide a basic plot summary. It also fails to meet any of the criteria in WP:BKCRIT. Nimuaq (talk) 11:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The trade reviews are dodgy, but there has been no official consensus on whether or not they would be considered trivial coverage. Even without those, the book has still been reviewed or mentioned by several literary journals and was made an ALA pick. It's light, but there's just enough to where I'd say this passes WP:NBOOK.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also finding where the book is mentioned in more than a few "these books are the best for your students" books, which suggests that the work is utilized in classrooms and/or school libraries. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. It's also listed in multiple articles and journals as being an example of the grittier teen literature. I didn't link to many of these in the article, as I wanted to show more meatier examples and listings in the article for now. [7] Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The book appears to have been reviewed by notable reviewers. ^King Jakob _C 14:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reviews/coverage identified above by Tokyogirl79; subject appears to meet WP:BK. Gong show 19:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.